Zionuts

[wiggin]

Oh my! I missed one of the most Zionutty things tonight:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/livebl...and-elsewhere/

'and elsewhere', classic. I don't know why anyone bothers taking these clowns seriously.

[Hazir]

I am still shocked by the events of last weekend. What Hamas committed were crimes against humanity and I will not shed a tear if all their evil lives are wiped out, to the very last of them. And I will go as far in my anger that I don't give a damn if their families are killed in the process. Just like I would not mourn the dead German or Japanese civilians in World War II. I am appalled also by the 'yes but' brigade who think there is any justification for the crimes committed and being committed. As if it weren't completely predictable that the supposed suffering that 'made this necessary' would make the very same suffering a thousand times worse. I am appalled by people close to me who applauded a man on TV (who I now see unmasked as an.anti-semite of the worst kind) who said 'the Jews had it coming'. Not even Israelis, Jews.

I am also happy that two close Syrian friends expressed their horror at the events and outright declared to be behind Israel.

At the same time I feel a rage against Netanyahu and his sham of a government. Who didn't just fail in the basic task of keeping citizens safe. But who have persistently undermined their own state with their devisive policies. Only to serve the worst extremists in the land who don't want to see that in the long run Israel is putting its very existence into question by stepping ruthlessly on the interests of their weaker counterparts. Besides the overambitious goals of Hamas, we also have had too many Israeli government that will not take any Palestinian aspiration in consideration. Hamas didn't want to negotiate, and that was just fine with that crook Netanyahu.

[Loki]

Wig, what ever chance there was at turning this around will end if Israel continues on its current path, which is likely to end with thousands dead and possibly some kind of an occupation of Gaza.

[wiggin]

Israel has killed tens of thousands of Arab troops in previous wars, and thousands of Palestinians in recent decades. They have occupied and then withdrawn from Sinai, Southern Lebanon, and Gaza. I see no reason why a future agreement might not be possible. With Hamas? Surely not, but the events of this week give lie to the idea that they were ever a reasonable interlocutor. But plenty of Arabs and Palestinians are reasonable and have reasonable demands, even if they are sworn enemies.

[Loki]

You assume that anyone who would replace Hamas after a bloodbath would be less extreme than Hamas. That's a brave assumption.

[Loki]

And for some actual Zionut content:

Twitter Link

[Aimless]

I will go as far in my anger that I don't give a damn if their families are killed in the process. Just like I would not mourn the dead German or Japanese civilians in World War II.

Blah blah blah.

And for some actual Zionut content:

Twitter Link

What in the actual fuck

[wiggin]

Loki, I am continually baffled at the fact that there's any moral uncertainty about Hamas.

Re my 'assumption', I'm not assuming anything. Maybe an alternative to Hamas will be better tomorrow, maybe in 10 years it will be. But certainly Hamas as it currently exists couldn't be any worse.

[Hazir]

Is it me or doesn't the IDF give the terrorists the chance to surrender?

[wiggin]

Not sure how to parse this, Hazir, but are you suggesting that you think that (a) Israel is waiting for Hamas to surrender and (b) Hamas has any intention of surrendering? I can assure you that the chance of either is 0%.

The delay in a ground op (if that's your thinking) has nothing to do with Hamas' timing. Israel just today more-or-less secured the entire length of the Gaza border and purged the remaining terrorists from each town. There are still occasional firefights with cells that got stuck behind in Israel, though those are decreasing in frequency every day. Israel isn't even done cataloguing and burying the dead civilians - funerals of many of the first victims only started today, which is an age by Israeli standards (most funerals in Israel happen the same day or the day after someone dies - 3 days and counting is unheard of).

Perhaps more importantly, it takes time to get 300,000 reservists ready for war. Units need to be staffed up, equipment checked and issued, refresher training finished (typically at least some target practice and the like), etc. Equipment (especially armor) needs to be brought to the front. Israel has never conducted a mobilization of this scale, and their logistics system is definitely feeling the strain.

That being said, all of the above is a luxury. In 1973 you saw reserve units thrown together haphazardly and thrown to the front (especially the Golan) within hours. That was because the situation was desperate and the survival of the state was at stake. In this case, the immediate threat is largely contained, which gives Israel time to prepare for what we all assume will be a ground assault. I'm sure that the IDF has various Gaza invasion plans on the shelf, but I wonder if the more ambitious of those plans have been vetted or updated all that carefully. The general consensus in the Israeli defense and political establishments is that any major ground invasion will be incredibly bloody and has thus not been seriously contemplated absent a really pressing situation. It appears that we have reached that situation, but figuring out what they actually want to do (and how to do it) is probably preoccupying minds in the security cabinet and Kirya at the moment.

Of course, there's also politics. Shenanigans (mostly by the right) have delayed the formation of a unity government, which most people see as a prerequisite for approving and managing a war of this import. It's possible they'll finally get an agreement by tomorrow, which could also signal the start of serious ground ops.

Lastly, it's possible that Israel is gauging Hezbollah's interest in opening a second front before deciding how much forces to commit to Gaza. The ongoing tit-for-tat across the northern border may stay at a relatively low level, but if not that will change their strategy.





In the last day or so, the various details on the dead and hostages have been filtering out. A teacher at my daughter's school found out that her sister was at the music festival and is believed to have been taken hostage. A friend of a friend had 8 members of her family taken hostage, including small children and elderly. And an acquaintance in my neighborhood found out that her son-in-law was killed defending one of the towns on Saturday morning. I expect that I'll be hearing more of this in the coming days.

[Steely Glint]

https://nitter.net/FareedZakaria/sta...549593493988#m

oh hey, nitter's back

[wiggin]

It comes and goes. But I'll never sign up for Twitter, and occasionally it's hard to find specific embedded videos elsewhere.

[wiggin]

I honestly didn't believe this was real initially because it seemed like Israeli propaganda: https://www.memri.org/tv/senior-hama...russia-support

[Hazir]

Not sure how to parse this, Hazir, but are you suggesting that you think that (a) Israel is waiting for Hamas to surrender and (b) Hamas has any intention of surrendering? I can assure you that the chance of either is 0%.

The delay in a ground op (if that's your thinking) has nothing to do with Hamas' timing. Israel just today more-or-less secured the entire length of the Gaza border and purged the remaining terrorists from each town. There are still occasional firefights with cells that got stuck behind in Israel, though those are decreasing in frequency every day. Israel isn't even done cataloguing and burying the dead civilians - funerals of many of the first victims only started today, which is an age by Israeli standards (most funerals in Israel happen the same day or the day after someone dies - 3 days and counting is unheard of).

Perhaps more importantly, it takes time to get 300,000 reservists ready for war. Units need to be staffed up, equipment checked and issued, refresher training finished (typically at least some target practice and the like), etc. Equipment (especially armor) needs to be brought to the front. Israel has never conducted a mobilization of this scale, and their logistics system is definitely feeling the strain.

That being said, all of the above is a luxury. In 1973 you saw reserve units thrown together haphazardly and thrown to the front (especially the Golan) within hours. That was because the situation was desperate and the survival of the state was at stake. In this case, the immediate threat is largely contained, which gives Israel time to prepare for what we all assume will be a ground assault. I'm sure that the IDF has various Gaza invasion plans on the shelf, but I wonder if the more ambitious of those plans have been vetted or updated all that carefully. The general consensus in the Israeli defense and political establishments is that any major ground invasion will be incredibly bloody and has thus not been seriously contemplated absent a really pressing situation. It appears that we have reached that situation, but figuring out what they actually want to do (and how to do it) is probably preoccupying minds in the security cabinet and Kirya at the moment.

Of course, there's also politics. Shenanigans (mostly by the right) have delayed the formation of a unity government, which most people see as a prerequisite for approving and managing a war of this import. It's possible they'll finally get an agreement by tomorrow, which could also signal the start of serious ground ops.

Lastly, it's possible that Israel is gauging Hezbollah's interest in opening a second front before deciding how much forces to commit to Gaza. The ongoing tit-for-tat across the northern border may stay at a relatively low level, but if not that will change their strategy.





In the last day or so, the various details on the dead and hostages have been filtering out. A teacher at my daughter's school found out that her sister was at the music festival and is believed to have been taken hostage. A friend of a friend had 8 members of her family taken hostage, including small children and elderly. And an acquaintance in my neighborhood found out that her son-in-law was killed defending one of the towns on Saturday morning. I expect that I'll be hearing more of this in the coming days.

No, I meant that as not letting individuals surrender. I hear zero reports about taking prisoners, but I do hear reports about terrorists' corpses in their underwear. What you would kind of expect while they are trying to surrender. But tbh, the fierceness of the bombardements of the last 2 days already gives me my answer. I have no idea where this road is leading, but it's gonna be bloody and long.

[Hazir]

It sounds like a narrative I have heard several times in western media.

[wiggin]

There are pictures and videos of Hamas prisoners. One particularly awful video from an interrogation where the terrorist admitted he planned to rape Israeli women.

It's certainly possible - even probable, given the scale of the operation, the chaos, and the atrocities - that some Hamas fighters were killed after surrendering.

[Steely Glint]

"In order to keep the attack secret and successful, the different factions and our allies did not know the zero hour. But after half an hour, all the Palestinian resistance factions were contacted as were our allies in Hizbullah and Iran. The Turks were also notified, and a meeting was held with them three hours later, at 9 am. We updated anyone who contacted us. Even the Russians sent a message and enquired, and they were updated about the situation and about the goals of the war.

[...]

"Our allies are those that support us with weapons and money. First and foremost it is Iran that is giving us money and weapons. There is also Hizbullah, and the Arab and Islamic people who are standing by us. There are countries that support us politically. Even Russia sympathizes with us. Even the Russians sent us messages yesterday morning. They sympathize with us. Russia is happy that America is getting embroiled in Palestine. It alleviates the pressure on the Russians in Ukraine. One war eases the pressure in another war. So we are not alone on the battlefield."
"

He's just out there throwing everyone under the bus, huh? Half of it probably bullshit.

[wiggin]

Oh I don't really believe any of it. Any relationship with the truth is likely accidental. But why he would think this would help Hamas... is very puzzling. I particularly liked the part where he says the Israelis value life and 'we' (Hamas? Palestinians? Who knows) are a death cult. Good job selling yourselves.

Also the bit about 'we pretended to care about governing Gaza and caring for Palestinians living there'. I mean did Mossad write his talking points?

[Steely Glint]

The entire interview, he is building up Hamas as a military threat; we have powerful friends, we have lots of guns, we are good at fighting, or op-sec is top-notch, we're ready to die for our cause, we don't give a shit about anything other than hurting Israel. Right now, there are people in the Israeli government deciding what, precisely they are going to do next and his message to them is simple: there's more where that came from.

[Hazir]

Oh I don't really believe any of it. Any relationship with the truth is likely accidental. But why he would think this would help Hamas... is very puzzling. I particularly liked the part where he says the Israelis value life and 'we' (Hamas? Palestinians? Who knows) are a death cult. Good job selling yourselves.

Also the bit about 'we pretended to care about governing Gaza and caring for Palestinians living there'. I mean did Mossad write his talking points?

Well, the way i understand the reports about this, is that it specifically will be a point of further investigation afterwards. Because there's a strong suspicion Hamas leadership may have fed Israeli intelligence with entirely staged conversations.

Here's the piece of the Times of Israel on it https://www.timesofisrael.com/years-...aels-defenses/

[wiggin]

The entire interview, he is building up Hamas as a military threat; we have powerful friends, we have lots of guns, we are good at fighting, or op-sec is top-notch, we're ready to die for our cause, we don't give a shit about anything other than hurting Israel. Right now, there are people in the Israeli government deciding what, precisely they are going to do next and his message to them is simple: there's more where that came from.

Israel knows an invasion of Gaza will be bloody, that's why they've avoided it for nearly two decades. But if he honestly thinks this kind of rhetoric will be effective, he's wildly mistaken. That's like when Hamas said a few days ago that their mission objectives were achieved and they're ready for a cease fire. As one commenter put it, 'good luck with that'.

[Steely Glint]

Well, an invasion seems inevitable but what the actual objectives and scope remain to be seen, Hamas's goals aren't the only ones about which you could say 'good luck with that'.

[Loki]

Another report that Egypt warned Israel days before the attack: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67082047

[Aimless]

Another report that Egypt warned Israel days before the attack: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67082047

If Israel really failed to act on such warnings, the failure was years in the making—and the responsibility for that failure can be lain directly at the feet of its democratically elected representatives. The same reprobates will bungle the response to the attacks in their attempts to save face.

[Steely Glint]

NYT report casts doubt on Iranian involvement

[Hazir]

I think we can safely say Israel has thrown the rule book out of the window and I cant blame them for doing so. The usual suspects should go look at some pictures of dead decapitated babies and then go and die a horrible death.

[wiggin]

Well, an invasion seems inevitable but what the actual objectives and scope remain to be seen, Hamas's goals aren't the only ones about which you could say 'good luck with that'.

I think this is going to be the fundamental issue. I heard Ehud Olmert interviewed by the BBC this morning (why they'd interview him was beyond me, but nonetheless). He spent much of the interview trying to moderate expectation while simultaneously agreeing that they needed to try to systematically dismantle Hamas. It's going to be hard to see a victory condition that would meaningfully improve the security situation absent ongoing occupation of Gaza, which Israel has zero interest in.

There's ample evidence that Hamas is not particularly popular in Gaza (despite their ridiculously heavy-handed suppression of dissent, there are occasional (and shockingly large!) protests against Hamas), but it's not clear that there is a coherent organizational structure to take the place of Hamas - Fatah is seriously discredited and unpopular as well, and there's very little remaining civil society left. The only major institutions that sorta function are Hamas and UNRWA. It's a very tricky problem.

Another report that Egypt warned Israel days before the attack: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67082047

NYT report casts doubt on Iranian involvement

I think the jury's still out on both of these points, but I'm inclined to think the Egypt story has some legs. The most likely explanation is that a warning was given to Israeli intelligence, and it was either discounted or hadn't yet made it up to the top brass. Either way it would be a substantial failure (though even more so if Netanyahu was given a credible warning and he didn't change their force posture around Gaza). Israel is well aware that succumbing to groupthink is dangerous, and that's why Ipcha Mitsabra exists. For them to have received such intelligence and not considered it seriously would be a major failure.

It's also possible that the intelligence was either received to close to the attack to digest, or was too vague to be actionable. But I'm more willing to believe that this was a failure of imagination, not bad luck. It's also likely that given the poor HUMINT Israel has on Hamas, they've been relying far too much on SIGINT, when Hamas knows they have had major OPSEC issues in the past. That's just a recipe for missing something if your enemy adapts.

Re: Iran, I think it's kinda a sideshow. It's largely irrelevant whether Iran was directly involved or not; I think most parties have a vested interest in keeping Iran from being directly embroiled in this war, and even if Iran was directly involved I doubt they'd face any serious consequences.

I think we can safely say Israel has thrown the rule book out of the window and I cant blame them for doing so. The usual suspects should go look at some pictures of dead decapitated babies and then go and die a horrible death.

You know, Hazir, I think that you're wrong on both counts: first, Israel has not thrown out the rule book, and second, it would not be right for them to do so.

Yes, the calculus of the conflict has changed. If your campaign is just about reducing rocket fire (which causes injuries, occasional death, and lots of damage, but is not an existential problem for Israeli life), then the permissible force is lower because the military advantage achieved by a given attack is lower, which means that acceptable collateral damage must also be lower. Given that the threat by Hamas has just been demonstrated to be far more serious, the acceptable collateral damage is also higher. I'm framing this in a very legalistic way (because that's how military lawyers think about it) but it means that even if the principle of distinction is still followed scrupulously, the principle of proportionality provides far more leeway in the way a war is prosecuted. We've seen that in the move away from 'knock on the roof' warning strikes (and calls/texts) and the broader selection criteria for targets.

I do think that Israel has a stupid own goal re: cutting off food and medical supplies to the Strip, but this is kinda par for the course in previous conflicts as well, not a change. I think a decent argument can be made that cutting off food and medical supplies is a violation of the laws of war, and it's also silly - no one will be bringing any food or medical supplies through an Israel-Gaza crossing any time soon, since all of the crossings were badly damaged by the Hamas attack and the border is an active war zone. It's wildly unlikely Hamas can be trusted to respect the inviolability of a humanitarian crossing, given that they've previously attacked crossings while they were being used for such a purpose (cf Kerem Shalom multiple times over the last 17 years). So Israel could have achieved the same result (forcing reliance on the Rafah crossing, which is Egypt's problem) without, you know, committing a possible crime. I should note that I don't think cutting electricity or fuel shipments are the same issue, that has legitimate military purpose.

[Loki]

Wig, the question isn't whether something could have a military purpose (that's a logic for genocide), but whether the harm being committed to civilians is proportion to the military objectives achieved through such harm (and whether less harmful alternatives could have achieved the same objective). Blocking food, medicine, or electricity isn't going to end this conflict, but it will lead to thousands of deaths. Russia was rightly condemned for going after Ukrainian sources of energy. Israel is doing the same, but on a greater scale.

[Hazir]

Also, the repeatedly expressed 'no quarter' message is a huge deal. I wasn't particularly surprised because facts on the ground were already pointing that way. Making it official though is an entirely different beast. It tells us the entire chain of command is committing to rules of engagement that do not comply with the Geneva conventions. Like I stated, I have no problems whatsoever with that, but you're not fooling me if you say Israel is still fully adhering to the same rules.

The size of the mobilization gives me no reason to believe that the annihilation as stated is not a primary goal of the present war.

I am a bit puzzled how you can seriously believe that what amounts to a full scale pogrom on several locations would only change the calculus of the conflict. That's probably what the Hamas leadership expected. What we are seeing though is a paradigm shift.

[wiggin]

Wig, the question isn't whether something could have a military purpose (that's a logic for genocide), but whether the harm being committed to civilians is proportion to the military objectives achieved through such harm (and whether less harmful alternatives could have achieved the same objective). Blocking food, medicine, or electricity isn't going to end this conflict, but it will lead to thousands of deaths. Russia was rightly condemned for going after Ukrainian sources of energy. Israel is doing the same, but on a greater scale.

Loki, Gazans will not starve to death. Food shipments have previously been interrupted due to Hamas attacks on crossing points and they muddled through. I think it's wrong for them to make it policy, and I think it smacks of collective punishment, but I highly doubt it will result in thousands of deaths.

Electricity cutoffs have a military purpose IMO. It's much harder for Hamas to operate if they are limited to their hidden generators and existing fuel supply. I wouldn't suggest it should be cut off indefinitely, but for the upcoming phase of the operation it seems logical. I think the distinction with Russia's actions are substantial. First, Russia wasn't supplying power to Ukraine and choosing to stop - they were actively attacking Ukraine's power infrastructure to permanently damage their ability to supply power to their people. Second, Russia was intentionally doing it during winter when electricity was far more lifesaving. Third, the military benefit to Russia in knocking out power in, say, Kiev is limited. Ukraine's troops on the front line probably barely use mains power and aren't affected by far-off attacks. This is not the case in Gaza. If nothing else, Israel has a major advantage in night vision capabilities and could exploit darkness much more effectively without power.

My point about proportionality was actually about airstrikes and the likely rules of engagement they will use in the upcoming ground combat, not the cutting off of supplies. I already said I think cutting off food and medicine as a policy (rather than a reality imposed by Hamas) is wrong and probably a crime.

Also, the repeatedly expressed 'no quarter' message is a huge deal. I wasn't particularly surprised because facts on the ground were already pointing that way. Making it official though is an entirely different beast. It tells us the entire chain of command is committing to rules of engagement that do not comply with the Geneva conventions. Like I stated, I have no problems whatsoever with that, but you're not fooling me if you say Israel is still fully adhering to the same rules.

The size of the mobilization gives me no reason to believe that the annihilation as stated is not a primary goal of the present war.

I am a bit puzzled how you can seriously believe that what amounts to a full scale pogrom on several locations would only change the calculus of the conflict. That's probably what the Hamas leadership expected. What we are seeing though is a paradigm shift.

I think that as always there will be accusations that Israel violates the rules of war, and in some cases those accusations will be correct. I don't think that Israel is making an explicit decision to ignore said rules (though certainly they have their own interpretation of them), I think they believe that the lawful application of those rules has changed due to the circumstances of this war.

The size of the mobilization is necessary for two reasons: 1) actually invading Gaza effectively, rather than a marginal piecemeal effort done in a few previous operations, will take a lot of troops. It's urban combat in one of the most densely populated places in the world, completely full of booby traps, tunnels, etc. It will require lots of troops. 2) Israel fully expects Hezbollah to open up another front and wants to be prepared - and perhaps, deter it by showing their readiness.

In reality, a mobilization of this size can't be supported for more than a few weeks. It'll be used for the high intensity initial phase of the operation and then phased out. It doesn't mean they're going to 'annihilate' Gaza, it just means they have a clear eyed understanding of what is involved.